I have lately become rather dismayed to observe that the Star Trek "franchise" has become exactly that - a franchise - a business proposition where anyone with enough money or power can purchase the right to create a new chapter in the epic, fill it with whatever drivel they desire, and call it Star Trek, with no thought or concern over whether it bears any resemblance to the original concept.

With each successive series, the vision that Gene Roddenberry created is left further and further behind. This explains why each series was less popular than the one before it. Deep Space Nine never quite captured the Next Generation audience, and Voyager was watched by even fewer viewers. Voyager had so little support in some areas that many stations dropped the series from their lineups altogether.

I do not mean to suggest that DS9 and Voyager were unsuccessful or lacking in entertainment value. Only that the concepts of these series strayed from that which made Star Trek the phenomenon it became in the first place. Star Trek was conceived by a humanist. Ultimately, in my humble opinion, it examined what it means to be human. Ironically, we learned about being human from non-human characters like Spock (yes, half-human, I know...) and Data. While there are still some vestiges of this philosophy to be found in DS9 (Odo)and Voyager (the Doctor), these series seem too preoccupied with their story arcs to truly explore the human condition. They risk turning Star Trek into just another space opera.

I find myself wondering if Star Trek would have followed the same course if Gene Roddenberry had not died. I really doubt he would have approved of the dark, confrontational, war serial that DS9 became. And a series about a lost ship trying to get home is so clich� in science fiction... I know that before he died, Gene turned the production over to Rick Berman, but I have never been happy with his custodianship. It almost seemed that since he was not capable of creating a successful series himself, Berman tried to reshape Star Trek to his own tastes. The results, of course, were less than spectacular.

For me, Star Trek is about a ship named Enterprise, her crew, and captain. Formulaic? Admittedly so. But Gene proved the formula works. He caught lightning in a bottle - twice. Stick to the charter. Show me strange new worlds. Seek out new life and new civilizations. Wait a few years until we all recover from Star Trek Overdose, then bring back the Enterprise. Tell the story of the Enterprise-B (just get a new Captain - not that spineless dunsel Harriman in his ill-fitting uniform), or the Enterprise-C (yes we know her fate, but what of the years before?) Fill in the gaps or find a new Enterprise to embark on. If this can't be done, perhaps we should consign Star Trek to the annals of television history and put an end to what might become a sad saga of mindless spin-offs, attempting merely to milk the cash cow. In my view, to let this happen would denigrate the legacy of a show that has had an enormous impact on American life, and diminish the memory of a man whose wonderful imagination created it all for the purpose of teaching us about ourselves.

Well, that's my rant. I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone. If DS9 or Voyager is your favorite show of all time, you'll get no quarrel from me. I enjoyed aspects of both shows. I would only argue that we shouldn't be so accepting of just anything Paramount is willing to slap a Star Trek label on.

I for one am getting just a tad tired of people saying this kind of crap about DS9 and VGR. They're good shows and don't deserve this kind of treatment.

Sorry about that, but it had to be said. Welcome to the board, BTW

------------------
"Yes. I have seventeen brains! And eleven legs. And a pecan."
-Frank Gerratana, March 3, 2000

Now to shred your argument.

Trek, at its core, has always been about the human condition. "What does it mean to be human?" it asks. Yes, at times there have been eps that did not ask this question. Voyager's "Deadlock", DS9's "Visionary", and TOS's "The Enterprise Incident" come to mind. They were just good science-fiction. DS9's purpose in a continuing war was to explore an area of humanity previously untouched in Trek. Do laws, in fact, fall silent during war? Is it morally acceptable to slaughter an enemy that has no hope of defeating you to defend yourself? Episodes like "In the Pale Moonlight", "Inter Arma Enim Selant Leges", and "The Siege of AR-588" proove that the exploration of the human condition continues in Trek.

Now to Voyager, I can not offer as much praise. Yes, it has it's good eps, but nowhere near as many as DS9. The one in which B'Elanna was arrested for having a negative thought, for instance, asked some good quesitons, although not as well as it could have. Of "Mortal Coil" I can offer the same comments. The writing as a whole could explore the theme of humanity far better than it has, but I think it's a little premature to declare Roddenberry's dream dead.

I would like to clarify a few points. I am not suggesting that DS9 and Voyager are not worth watching, nor am I suggesting that Voyager,the last remaining Trek on TV, be cancelled. I merely wished to elicit thoughts from others regarding whether these series on the whole live up to the high standards set by their predecessors.

Not every episode can be an award-winner, I'll readily admit. Who could forget "Spock's Brain" (uugh), or "Rascals" (double uugh). Nor should every episode have some high-minded philosophical undercurrent. My concern is that Star Trek is ever so slowly losing its way, becoming more and more like every other bit of science fiction and that the people in charge don't give a rat's pitoot.

Like it or not, each TV Trek is less popular than the one before. The audience tuning into Star Trek was 35 million strong in 1987. By 1996 it had dropped to less than 4 million. The Next Generation ceased production so it wouldn't compete with DS9. The ratings were less than satisfactory, so the writers trotted out Worf and the Defiant to try to garner more interest. The Dominion War was in my estimation a blatant attempt to gain viewers by offering more violence, death, and exploding starships.

Fabrux, it appears you are a big fan of Star Trek, and I think that's great. It may interest you to know that I took part in the campaign to save the original Trek from cancellation quite a long time ago. I was also among those who petitioned NASA to name the first shuttle after the Enterprise. I love Star Trek too, and would like nothing more than to see it go on forever, as long as it stays true to its roots. Roddenberry's dream isn't quite dead yet, Omega, but it's on it's way out. I seriously doubt we'll see a DS9 movie and it will be a bloody cold day in hell before Voyager sees the big screen.

My greatest concern stems from what I believe is the poor custodianship exhibited by those responsible for the show, most notably Rick Berman (executive producer) and Brannon Braga (co-executive producer and head-writer). Rick Berman cooked up DS9 after reading the Babylon 5 guide. I know someone's going to debate me on this, but it's true. The man has never once had an original thought. Brannon Braga never once watched an episode of the original series. When asked why he was quoted by Sci-Fi Universe "-its not that important whether I have seen the original series. I mean, who gives a sh*t?" When asked about fans on the internet protesting Viacom's persecution/prosecution of Trek-related fan webpages he said, "No offense, but they got too much time on their f**cking hands." Bet you didn't know that... These guys are morons, Fabrux, and if they don't pull their heads out of their you-know-whats, there WON'T be any Star Trek around when your my age.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Star Trek fan, trekkie, trekker, whatever. Please don't turn this thread into a "my Trek's better that your Trek" thing. I like DS9 and Voyager. They're just not Star Trek to me.

They're doing something that is wrong, in that they can't seem to keep the spirit of the series alive. Failing that, it seems to me that they're trying to milk the cash cow dry before it loses momentum (to badly mix some metaphors ).

When Walt Disney was alive, the Disney studios could do no wrong. Every project they touched turned to gold. When Walt Disney died, they lost their main creative talent. They struggled along for many years, turning out mediocre "entertainment" like "Million Dollar Duck" and other drivel. It took them several years to finally recover and figure out how to get along without Walt.

I suspect that Gene's presence added direction and purpose to the whole Star Trek enterprise. I hope they find their direction before they've driven off so many loyal fans that it isn't worth the investment. I hope they recover before they have to scrap the whole franchise, because I like what Trek can be, but all too often isn't anymore.

--Baloo

P.S.: Welcome to the forums, Savar. You certainly picked a sore spot to pick at on your first go, huh? Don't worry, a lot of us have been there, done that, and got the tee-shirt!

------------------
"Lassie, her ears pricked up!"

--Atoth the Tamarian [From "Star Trek: Door Repair Guy"]
http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/

Ok, I can't resist. Anyone claiming that DS9 is a copy of B5 must first refute the claim that B5 is essentially a cut and paste from The Lord of the Rings, one in which not even the names were changed to protect the innocent. (Not that I would defend such an argument, though it has struck me as curious at various times in the past. My point is that both are essentially equally nonsensical. The claims, that is, not B5 and The Lord of the Rings.)

I think if TPTB were supposed to create good entertainment only, they were mostly successful since TNG. Only if you postulate they were to follow exactly Gene's path, I would agree they failed.

As for exploration of humanity and the profoundness of the stories, I couldn't tell that there was really a decay since then. Take DS9 episodes like "Dax", "Second Skin", "Honor Among Thieves", "Wrongs Darker Than Death Or Night", "In The Pale Of Moonlight" or "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges". There seem to be even more in Voyager: "Tuvix", "Remember", "Distant Origin", "Random Thoughts", "Mortal Coil", "Living Witness", "Nothing Human", or "Latent Image". There were not really more of this kind in TOS or TNG.

Apart from that I also expect general science fiction (strange phenomena and such) from Star Trek. Voyager has much of it, DS9 rather few. This is a problem of DS9, and the endless Dominion War (probably meant to compensate for that deficiency) was even aggravating it. Not that DS9 would have been warlike, I only felt that it wouldn't suit the spirit of Star Trek to show space battles instead of Picard-like diplomatic solutions. In this respect Voyager has a problem too. How often did the E-D fire phasers in seven years? About as often as Voyager in a few weeks.

I have the impression that the advances in visual effects could create the impression that the main scope is now on space battles and phaser fights. I'm not referring to long-time fans here, but rather to the young generation (dangerous statement, since many of you are actually <20 ) who often don't care about the difference between a light saber, a phaser or whatsoever. I mean, science-fiction might have become something like the often dull video games that were originally derived from and loosely based on it, and Star Trek wouldn't be an exception any more. The product has to be stylish in order to appeal to the (young) audience, but profound enough to find real fans. Considering this dilemma Star Trek is performing rather well.

Finally, I would like to reaffirm that I think a break for Trek would be the worst that could happen. After all, if there is no Trek for a couple of years, it would be remembered as the "old-fashioned show our parents used to watch", a statement that is absolutely detrimental to science fiction. A revival like the one of TNG has to be considered as a one-time miracle in a time when there was plenty of room for science fiction.

I agree with pretty much all you said. I am fond of the more recent incarnations too, but for me noting gets the blood pumping quite like seeing the big E warping off to adventure. I doubt it could be recaptured by a third version, and await news of series 5 with great trepidation.

Ah well, there's always reruns.

I think we need to be careful of doing to Gene Roddenbery what the people of the UFP did to Zephram Cochrane after he left the scene. (In fact, I've often thought that Bergman, Braga, and Moore were trying to say exactly this when they made Cochrane the kind of character he was in ST-FC.) Yes, Gene was a visionary. Yes, he captured lighning in a bottle -- twice. But I think he could just as easily have spoken Cochrane's words in the cockpit of the Phoenix: "You know what my vision is? Dollar signs..." etc.

Now, before you pick up stones to hurl at me, all I'm trying to say is that Trek can be good, quality entertainment, on par with anything that Roddenbery did himself, without Roddenbery and, more importantly, without Roddenbery's "magic formula," the aforementioned "Enterprise, her crew, and her captain."

I, too, watched every episode of TOS long before there was a TNG. I have no great affection for Bergman, Braga, Moore, and the lot. I agree that a break is not what the franchise needs. I wish Paramount would sack the current franchise leadership, find an old fan who has invested his life in the Trek universe (I volunteer ), and start anew.

------------------
Dane

As for the whole DS9 / B5 thing: I've watched both shows. Besides being set on a space station and having aliens, they're completely different, and anybody who says otherwise is belching methane out their posterior.
I refused to watch B5 for the first 4 years BECAUSE I'd heard about the whole B5/DS9 thing, and I regretted that decision after I started watching. It's a fine show, Tolkien-lifting notwithstanding (show me a story like that that DOESN'T borrow from other mythic cycles on occasion. Shall I say Voyager = The Odyssey?)

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

I think First is right. Voyager suffers from being on UPN, a network that covers little of the country. I think it's ratings would be similar to DS9's if Voyager had been in syndication. I'll grant you that that's way down from TNG, but they would still be respectable.

Trek was always a cash cow. The Rod did everything he could to make money, including writing lyrics to the theme song, so he could share in the roylties.

They don't make quite as many good episodes as they used to. DS9 had fewer then TNG, Voyager fewer then DS9. I think this is a symptom of bad writing, which is sad, considering how many good writers there are writing Trek books.

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

Just my two cents.

Good to have you here.

------------------
"A gathering of Angels appeared above my head. They sang to me this song of hope, and this is what they said..." -Styx

Aban's Illustration www.thespeakeasy.com/alanfore

Now, Savar, saying that DS9 and Voyager are not Star Trek isn't exactly praised around here... So what if I'm only 15. So what if I've only seen 3 episodes of TOS. Does that make me not a true Trek fan? I've seen all the movies. I've seen all the TNG episodes. I've seen all the DS9 and VGR episodes, except for a few that I was unfortunately unable to catch. My favourite Trek movie is not Generations, First Contact, or Insurrection as I'm sure you would expect. My favourite Trek movie is The Undiscovered Country. Didn't expect that, did you? And why is it that DS9 and Voyager are "not Star Trek" as you say? I'd like to know why you think this way. If you ask me, every incarnation of Star Trek is just as much Trek as TOS is. No series is better, no series is worse. They're equal.

------------------
"Yes. I have seventeen brains! And eleven legs. And a pecan."
-Frank Gerratana, March 3, 2000

------------------
Dane